Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I gave two examples: Pluto and Phlogiston.This is unjustifiable.
Present evidence or retract.
This is defamatory and unbelievably hypocritical, not to mention false witness.
I gave two examples: Pluto and Phlogiston.
I'm being nice, too, by not bringing up Nebraska Man and Haeckel's Embryos.
Baloney --- it does too.Doesn't prove your point.
That's because creationism is not science --- it's history.If scientists treated science like creationists treat creationism, we'd never advance at all.
Baloney --- it does too.
You guys were forced to drop Phlogiston when evidence became so overwhelming that it would be ludicrous to keep believing it as factual.That's because creationism is not science --- it's history.
Look at what treating it as science is doing now; nothing but confusing you guys.
Until you look at it like it was meant to be looked at, you guys (and we too --- we're no exception) are not going to get anywhere.
I gave two examples: Pluto and Phlogiston.
I'm being nice, too, by not bringing up Nebraska Man and Haeckel's Embryos.
Of course you did --- you had no choice.The point is we did.
What on earth does creationism have to do with evidence, Phlogiston, or anything scientific?The creationist mindset would be to continue denying evidence contradicting phlogiston...
Of course you did --- you had no choice.
Now you want to claim credit for changing it and call that a "strength".
What on earth does creationism have to do with evidence, Phlogiston, or anything scientific?
Of course you did --- you had no choice.
Now you want to claim credit for changing it and call that a "strength".What on earth does creationism have to do with evidence, Phlogiston, or anything scientific?
I don't believe that.
Yes.
God did it --- Case Closed.
"God did it" explains red shift? *rolls eyes*
I don't believe that.
Yes.
God did it --- Case Closed.
I know the feeling. You are excused.I really hate that particular style of interwebs debate, it tends to lead to 'bumper sticker' debate (obnoxious) and excessively long posts, so please excuse me if I don't respond to every 4~5 words in your post.
I'm just imitating everyone else who discuss cosmology, with or without the 'credentials'.First off, what are your credentials for making the bald assertion 'it is'?
Ya know, I have often wondered why people who discuss cosmology, with or without the 'credentials', use the term "it is", even though "it is" has never been PROVEN.You fail to provide substantiation, which gives the impression that you speak from authority. I find those who attempt the facade of authority when they possess none are usually those with the least authority on a subject.
Then why do cosmologists do it?Yes. And the earth is moving through space, therefore space is not at a fixed point from earth, so measuring the expansion of space is meaningless.
That's because I don't see the relation between the "evidence" you provided and the so called "expansion", so I just wanted to clear up the confusion.Your original exclamation of exasperation didn't ask for a how, it asked for evidence of expansion. Your moving goalposts here.
Perhaps you should find out from real cosmologists, then you might understand my "exasperation".As per your *new* request, I'm not a cosmologist and so I don't know the latest theories pertaining to what caused expansionism.
It would appear we are both "exasperated".Unlike a creationist, I don't pretend to know everything.
What, in your mind, constitutes proof of something? Or more specifically, what would constitute proof of an expanding universe?Ya know, I have often wondered why people who discuss cosmology, with or without the 'credentials', use the term "it is", even though "it is" has never been PROVEN.
This isn't going to turn a law vs theory farce is it? Look up what the word theory really means, how it is used in science. Many theories are so well evidenced that they are taken as facts.Forming a theory is the best cosmologists can do.
From what I've learnt about evolution has led me to conclude that evolution is nothing but an insult to my family's intelligence. The idea that my family has the intelligence of apes, and that my great grand dad was the brother of a gorilla, does no fit well with us. Thats a car that just wont drive in our family.From this I can only conclude that you close your eyes whenever you see a post about evolution. It happens, we have demonstrated it, we have evidence for it, and that same evidence has been posted regularly around this thread. I'm not sure there's much left that we can do.
In other words, the science is not about reality, it's about one theory remaining until another theory comes along and replaces it, while reality remains unchanged.No. We admit to it when a better theory comes around. There hasn't been a better theory so far, so we must proceed under the conclusion that the current one is correct.
From what I've learnt about evolution has led me to conclude that evolution is nothing but an insult to my family's intelligence. The idea that my family has the intelligence of apes, and that my great grand dad was the brother of a gorilla, does no fit well with us. That’s a car that just won’t drive in our family.
In other words, the science is not about reality, it's about one theory remaining until another theory comes along and replaces it, while reality remains unchanged.
There is plenty of evidence for this:Creationism 101.
You should know by now that creationists will never resort to anything as base as "evidence," "facts," or "proof" when they can shuffle around "interpretations" of other people's work to make it look like they have a valid point.
Demand evidence, and all you'll get is word-twisting and projection.
But you guys will only deny it, as you are doing already.You're admissions of error are nothing more than cheap, plastic, public relations rhetoric.
From what I've learnt about evolution has led me to conclude that evolution is nothing but an insult to my family's intelligence. The idea that my family has the intelligence of apes, and that my great grand dad was the brother of a gorilla, does no fit well with us. That’s a car that just won’t drive in our family.
If an invisible man ran on a beach would he be undetectable? Invisible surly but not undetectable.Consensus Cosmology with all of its dark, invisible, undetectable stuff is a car that doesn't drive, either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?